Automatic 2D Airfoil Generation, Evaluation and

Optimisation using MATLAB and XFOIL

M
a
s
t
e
r

T
h
e
s
i
s
Xavier Mauclre
MEK-FM-EP 2009-11
August 2009
DTU Mechanical Engineering
Section of Fluid Mechanics
Technical University of Denmark
Nils Koppels All, Bld. 403
DK- 2800 Kgs. Lyngby
Denmark
Phone (+45) 45 25 43 00
Fax (+45) 45 88 43 25
www.mek.dtu.dk












MASTERS THESIS

AUTOMATIC 2D AIRFOIL GENERATION, EVALUATION AND OPTIMISATION
USING MATLAB AND XFOIL






















Author:
Xavier Mauclre

Supervisors:
Dongke Sun (Vestas, England)
Ton Lubrecht (INSA Lyon, France)
Martin O. L. Hansen (DTU, Denmark)






2

Table of content


Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

2. Airfoil Generation .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Geometry description ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Validity of the geometry description.............................................................................. 6
2.2.1. Geometrical flexibility ............................................................................................... 8
2.2.2. Airfoil performance check ....................................................................................... 12

3. Airfoil Evaluation............................................................................................................. 14
3.1. Flow solver ................................................................................................................... 14
3.2. Validity of XFOIL results ............................................................................................ 18
3.3. Interface MATLAB/XFOIL......................................................................................... 20

4. Airfoil Optimisation ......................................................................................................... 22
4.1. General wind turbine airfoil requirements ................................................................... 22
4.2. Design Strategy ............................................................................................................ 23
4.3. Design algorithm.......................................................................................................... 26

5. Program validation ........................................................................................................... 29
5.1. Improvement of the lift-drag ratio at 2 degrees angle of attack ................................... 30
5.2. Improvement of the lift-drag ratio at 5 degrees angle of attack ................................... 33
5.3. Improvement of the lift-drag ratio at 2 AND 5 degrees angle of attack ...................... 37

6. Future work and limitations ............................................................................................. 43

7. Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 44

References ................................................................................................................................ 45









3
Abstract

A method for design of wind turbine airfoils is presented. This method is based on direct
numerical optimisation of a B-spline representation of the airfoil shape. The XFOIL is used as
flow solver during the optimisation. The generation and the optimisation processes are
implemented in MATLAB, and an interface between MATLAB and XFOIL is created.

The airfoil profiles are represented by a B-Spline formulation based on 14 control points. The
control point distribution, detailed in the present work, is able to reproduce different airfoils
with various geometries with a good accuracy (maximal geometry difference less than 0.5%).

The design method is demonstrated by the improvement of the MH43 profile performances at
different angles of attack under specific conditions: Reynolds number = 3.10
6
and Mach
number = 0.2. First the lift-drag ratio at 2 degrees angle of attack is increased from 93 to 120.
Then, lift-drag ratio at 5 degrees angle of attack is increased from 110 to 130. Finally, the lift-
drag ratio is increased simultaneously at both angles: 2 and 5 degrees. This results in an
increase in performances of the initial MH43 profile over the entire range of angles of attack.

Nevertheless, the program is not completed yet. Other validations have to be performed and
several parameters still have to be implemented.




















4
1. Introduction


Airfoil design for wind turbine blades is one of the keys of wind turbine development. Studies
have shown that choosing airfoils with suitable characteristics decreases the cost of the
produced energy. Design of modern airfoil profiles has to consider different variables such as
the structural stiffness and the material that are most of the time conflicting with the
aerodynamic performances. For example, thin airfoils are desirable for their high lift-to-drag
ratio and roughness insensitiveness but can not guaranty the required blade stiffness for large
rotors.

The airfoils currently used are pretty old like the NACA family which was originally
developed for airplanes during the World War II. However aerodynamic performances and
geometrical characteristics of airplane airfoils do not necessarily fit the wind turbine
requirements. The NACA airfoils were developed for high Reynolds numbers and suffer from
significant laminar separation bubbles when used on wind turbines at lower Reynolds
numbers. The effect of these bubbles on the airfoil performance varies significantly with the
roughness. Thus, airfoil families have to be developed specifically for wind turbine blades to
improve rotor efficiency.

Methods for airfoil design can be classified into two categories: direct and inverse design. The
direct airfoil design methods involve a given airfoil cross section and compute the pressure
distribution under specified conditions (angle of attack, Reynolds number, Mach number).
Thus the given airfoil shape is evaluated and then can be modified to improve its
performances. Kristian S. Dahl and Peter Fuglsang have done remarkable work in this field
[1] [6].

The variety of methods for inverse design works the other way round: the airfoil
characteristics are imposed to determine the corresponding airfoil shape. In other words, the
airfoil surface flow is defined at specified operational conditions and the shape that will
generate these surface conditions (pressure distribution) is found. Until now, most of airfoil
designs have been developed by use of inverse design methods. Nevertheless, the latter are
not studied in this project since the objective is to develop a direct design method.

The baseline objective of the present work is to automatically generate airfoil profiles using
control points and evaluate their aerodynamic performances. A further objective is to optimise
the airfoils for the use on wind turbine blades. The design method is based on direct numerical
optimisation. The airfoil generation, evaluation and optimisation is integrated using the
MATLAB facilities. MATLAB is a robust and easy time software with a simple interface.
Furthermore, it has a large panel of optimisation functions that are used for the present work.
Airfoil characteristics are computed thanks to the flow solver XFOIL. The automatic airfoil
optimisation process has to be directed from MATLAB. Hence, one of the keys of this project
is to develop an interface between MATLAB and XFOIL.

The work presented here has been largely inspired by the article Design of the Wind Turbine
Airfoil Family RIS-A-XX written by Kristian S. Dahl and Peter Fuglsang on December 1998
at Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark [1]. Basically, the aim of this project is to try
to reproduce their work using a MATLAB interface instead.



5
2. Airfoil Generation

The aim of this section is to accurately generate any kind of airfoil profile on MATLAB.
Since the airfoil shape is going to be modified and evaluated many times during the
optimisation process, it has to be generated using as few input parameter as possible. Indeed
describing the airfoil profile using one or two hundred coordinate points is not the easiest way
to modify its entire geometry with minimum computational cost. Furthermore it is
fundamental to obtain a smooth airfoil shape to guaranty better aerodynamic performance.

2.1. Geometry description

In the present work, the airfoil profile is generated using a B-spline formulation based on a set
of control points. The B-spline method extrapolates a curve from given control points with
respect to a given degree (or order) k:

Given m real valued t
i
, called knots, with:


1 1 0
...


m
t t t

A B-spline of degree k is a parametric curve [5],

[ ]
2
1 0
, :
m
t t S

composed of a linear combination of basis B-splines b
i,k
of degree k

=
=
k m
i
k i i
t b P t S
0
,
) ( ) (
,
[ ]
k m k
t t t

,
1


The P
i
s are called control points. There are mk+1 control points. The m-k+1 basis B-splines
of degree k can be defined using the Cox-de Boor recursion formula:

=
0
1
) (
0 ,
t b
j

otherwise
t t t if
j j 1 +



) ( ) ( ) (
1 , 1
1 1
1
1 , ,
t b
t t
t t
t b
t t
t t
t b
k j
j k j
k j
k j
j k j
j
k j +
+ + +
+ +

=


If two knots t
j
are identical, any resulting indeterminate forms 0/0 are deemed to be 0. Note
that j+k+1 can not exceed m-1, which limits both j and k.


Figure 1: Illustration of a B-spline curve (blue line) on MATLAB generated by 12 control points (in red)
with k=5


6
k determines how large a part of the entire curve is altered when a single control point is
moved. High values of k lead to a smoother curve whereas small values of k tend to create
abrupt angles. The figure bellow shows two B-spline curves that represent two airfoil shapes
generated with 14 control points but different degrees of smoothness. It can be seen that for
k=1 the B-spline curve (in blue) crosses all the control points. Thus the curve is very angular.
Whereas for k=5, the B-spline curve is very smooth.



Figure 2: Effect of the degree k on a B-Spline curve generated by 14 control points on MATLAB


Thanks to the B-spline method, only the control point coordinates represent the design
variables of the airfoil generation. For an airfoil shape, it is chosen that the single B-Spline
curve is defined counter clockwise from the trailing edge. The deal now is to determine the
number of control points to be used, their distribution as well as their degrees of freedom in
order to be able to accurately reproduce any kind of airfoil shape with acceptable
computational costs.


2.2. Validity of the geometry description

The control point distribution is supposed to be able to accurately generate any airfoil shape.
Indeed it must not avoid the optimisation process finding an optimised profile. In the article
Design of the Wind Turbine Airfoil Family RIS-A-XX written by Kristian S. Dahl and Peter
Fuglsang [1], 13 control points are chosen to generate the B-spline curve with a degree k=5.
In the present work, it is decided to use the same degree (k=5) for it provides a very smooth
airfoil. Nevertheless, the number of control points is studied in this section: 4 control point
distributions are compared in order to determine which one of them is the best to reproduce
various airfoil shapes. From a general point of view, most of the control points are fixed in the
x-direction in order to limit the number of design variables. The different distributions are
detailed in the figures below.




7
1
st
control point distribution:


Figure 3
The B-spline curve is defined by 11
control points with different degrees of
freedom.

Only one control point is used to define
the leading edge. This point is free to
move in both x and y directions.

Number of design variables = 10

2
nd
control point distribution:


Figure 4
The B-spline curve is defined by 12
control points with different degrees of
freedom.

In order to increase the accuracy at the
leading edge, two control points are
used to define this region. These points
are free to move in both x and y
directions.

Number of design variables = 12

3
rd
control point distribution:


Figure 5
The B-spline curve is defined by 13
control points with different degrees of
freedom.

Only one control point is used to
define the leading edge. This point is
free to move in both x and y
directions.

The distribution is refined at the
leading and trailing edges.

Number of design variables = 12



8
4
th
control point distribution:


Figure 6
The B-spline curve is defined by 14
control points with different degrees
of freedom.

In order to increase the accuracy at
the leading edge, two control points
are used to define this region. These
points are free to move in both x
and y directions.

The distribution is refined at the
leading and trailing edges.

Number of design variables = 14



2.2.1. Geometrical flexibility

A simple test is performed with MATLAB to test the flexibility of the distributions described
above. In principle, any physically realistic shape should be achievable to allow design from
an initial arbitrary shape. Hence, the aim of the test is to try reproduce different existing
airfoil profiles using a given distribution and evaluate the maximal geometrical difference
between the two profiles.

The geometrical difference between the two curves is evaluated vertically at 100 different
points not equally spaced along the chord length. Indeed the density of evaluation points is
higher at the leading and trailing edges. The test is directed by the MATLAB function
lsqnonlin developed to solve nonlinear least-squares (nonlinear data-fitting) problems. The
input parameters are the coordinates of the control points (according to their degrees of
freedom) and the output is the vector of geometrical differences computed at each evaluation
point. The function minimizes the difference between the two curves by gradually moving the
control points (see figure below).

Figure 7: Test of the validation of the control point distribution


9


Four existing airfoils are selected to test the control point distributions. It is important to
choose very different shapes in order to have relevant results. Therefore it is decided to
reproduce:
- the MH126 profile (thick airfoil)

- the MH121 profile (thin and cambered airfoil)

- the MH43 profile (thin airfoil)

- the NACA 642415 (thick and cambered airfoil)


For each case, the maximal geometrical difference
max
and its location on the profile are
given in the table below. The airfoil profile is normalized.


1
st
distribution
(11 CPs)
2
nd
distribution
(12 CPs)
3
rd
distribution
(13 CPs)
4
th
distribution
(14 CPs)


max

Loc.

max

Loc.

max

Loc.

max

Loc.
MH126 0.0052 TE 0.0054 TE 0.0049 LE 0.0021 TE
MH121 0.0017 LE 0.0014 TE 0.0014 TE 0.0014 TE
MH43 0.0030 LE 0.0027 LE 0.0027 LE 0.0016 LE
NACA 642415 0.0039 LE 0.0036 LE 0.0031 LE 0.0023 TE

TE = Trailing Edge
LE = Leading Edge


It can be deduced from the results above that the 4
th
control point distribution has the best
geometrical flexibility. The maximal geometrical difference remains around 0.2% no matter
the airfoil shape. Moreover, the location of
max
is generally at the trailing edge. This means
that the accuracy is even better at the leading edge. The latter affects a lot the aerodynamic
characteristics of the airfoil profiles and thus has to be accurately defined. From a
manufacturing point of view, it is difficult to build sharp and thin trailing edge. There is
always a certain error between the theoretical and the real shape. This is why there is no
particular interest in improving too much the accuracy at the trailing edge. Further more,
including more control points or more degrees of freedom tends to increase significantly the
computational costs. Obviously, better distributions based on 14 control points (CPs) can be
found by changing slightly the CPs x-coordinates and may be the topic of a complementary
study. Nevertheless the results shown above are considered accurate enough.

The plots corresponding to the selected CP distribution (the 4
th
distribution) are shown in the
figures below. The initial airfoil (blue dashed line) is a NACA 2414. It is an arbitrary choice.
Any airfoil shape could have been taken. On each plot is shown the maximal geometrical
difference
max
.


10


Figure 8: Flexibility of the CP distribution based on 14 CPs, k=5


11
As it is said above, the leading edge has to be accurately reproduced by the B-spline curve for
most of the aerodynamic characteristics are induced by this region. Using two control points
instead of one to define the leading edge increases significantly the accuracy of the curve.
This is shown in the figure below. The green curve represents the airfoil generated by the 4
th

control point distribution which uses two control points at the leading edge (see Figure 6).
Whereas the red curve represents the airfoil generated by the 3
rd
control point distribution
which uses only one control point at the leading edge (see Figure 5). The green curve is much
closer than the typical profile (dashed line). In this example, the typical profile to be
reproduced is the MH121.


-0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035
-0.015
-0.01
-0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
typical airfoil (mh121)
14 CPs (4th Distribution)
13 CPs (3rd Distribution)

Figure 9: Comparison of the 3
rd
and the 4
th
control point distribution on the leading edge definition



To summarize, the 4
th
control point distribution is used to reproduce any kind of airfoil shape.
This distribution is defined by 14 control points with two at the leading edge (free in both x
and y directions) and has proved to have a good geometrical flexibility. It is now interesting to
check whether this distribution is also able to reproduce the airfoil performance.



12
2.2.2. Airfoil performance check

In the figures below, the red curve represents the characteristics of the airfoil profile generated
by the 14 control points whereas the blue curve represents the real profile. The profile
characteristics are determined with XFOIL. Two airfoil profiles are studied here: the MH30
and the MH43.

MH30 profile

The control point distribution
can reproduce the MH30
profile with a maximal
geometry difference of 0.0017

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
A.o.A
C
L
mh30 created
initial mh30 profile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
A.o.A
C
D
mh30 created
initial mh30 profile

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
C
D
C
L
mh30 created
initial mh30 profile


It can be seen that the MH30 airfoil created with the control point distribution has very close
characteristics from the real MH30 at small angle of attack (until 5 degree angle of attack).
For large angle of attack the polar differs but keeps the same progression.


13
MH43 profile

The control point distribution
can reproduce the MH30
profile with a maximal
geometry difference of 0.0016

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
A.o.A
C
L
mh43 created
initial mh43 profile
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
A.o.A
C
D
mh43 created
initial mh43 profile

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
C
D
C
L
mh43 created
initial mh43 profile


In the same way, the B-spline representation of the MH43 profile has very close
characteristics from the real MH43 profile at small angle of attack (until 6 degree angle of
attack). For large angle of attack the polar differs but keeps the same progression. This
difference in performance comes from the small geometrical difference between the real and
created profiles. Nevertheless the airfoil performance remains close. Hence, it can be
concluded that the 4
th
control point distribution (see Figure 6) is flexible enough to accurately
reproduce the geometry and the performance of any airfoil shape.




14
3. Airfoil Evaluation

It has been shown in the previous part that any airfoil shape can be accurately reproduced
using a B-spline formulation based on 14 control points. The next step now is to be able to
evaluate the performance of the newly generated profile.


3.1. Flow solver

The task of the flow solver is to analyse and determine the airfoil characteristics. Since the
optimisation process requires many evaluations and modifications of the airfoil profile, the
computational costs of the flow solver has to remain relatively small. These are the reasons
why XFOIL is used as flow solver in the present work.

XFOIL is a free software, written by Mark Drela. XFOIL is based on high order panel
methods with the fully coupled viscous/inviscid interaction method used in the ISES code
developed by Drela. It is a fast and robust solver.

The figure below shows the XFOIL home page. The different available commands are listed
in the window and can be executed by typing their corresponding code.


Tableau 1: XFOIL home page


15

In the present work, only the viscous analysis is performed. According to [2], the boundary
layers and wake are described with a two-equation lagged dissipation integral boundary layer
(BL) formulation and an envelope e
n
transition criterion, both taken from the transonic
analysis/design ISES code. The entire viscous solution (boundary layers and wake) is strongly
interacted with the incompressible potential flow via the surface transpiration model. This
permits proper calculation of limited separation regions. The drag is determined from the
wake momentum thickness far downstream. A special treatment is used for a blunt trailing
edge which fairly accounts for base drag.

The total velocity at each point on the airfoil surface and wake, with contributions from the
freestream, the airfoil surface vorticity, and the equivalent viscous source distribution, is
obtained from the panel solution with the Karman-Tsien correction added. This is
incorporated into the viscous equations, yielding a nonlinear elliptic system which is readily
solved by a full-Newton method as in the ISES code. Execution times are quite rapid,
requiring about few seconds.

For a given angle of attack , Reynolds number and Mach number, XFOIL provides the
pressure distribution, CP(x), lift coefficient, Cl, and drag coefficient, Cd. Basically, XFoil
finds the flow around the airfoil for the given angle of attack and a window pops up showing
the pressure distribution, the section lift coefficient, the section moment coefficient and the
angle of attack. The drag coefficient and the lift-to-drag ratio are also presented (see Figure
10). Both viscous and inviscid flow distribution are shown on the pop up window. The dashed
lines represent the inviscid flow distribution. This provides an easy way to compare viscous
and inviscid flow. In addition, numerous boundary layer parameters are calculated. Transition
was modeled by the e
n
method with n=9. The boundary layer is outlined around the airfoil in
Figure 10.



16

Figure 10: Example of results returned by XFOIL



The command screen (see Figure 11) returns the last iteration which provides more data about
the airfoil like the point of transition to turbulent flow in the upper and lower surfaces. It also
provides CDf and CDp, the friction drag and pressure drag respectively.


Side 1 free transition at x/c = 0.0054 14
Side 2 free transition at x/c = 1.0000 44
1 rms: 0.5724E-05 max: 0.1692E-04 D at 17 1
a = 10.000 CL = 1.0015
Cm = 0.0095 CD = 0.03055 => CDf = 0.00531
CDp = 0.02524
Figure 11: Illustration of the XFOIL command screen


XFOIL can be directed by typing manually a list of command or by loading an input file. This
method is very convenient for iterative tasks. The input file is a text or data file that has to
contain exactly the same syntax as the command window. The table below shows an example


17
of input file that directs XFOIL to compute the characteristics of a given airfoil at
Re=500000, Mach=0.2 for a sequence of angles of attack. The results are stored in a data file.

Table 2: Example of Input file Meaning

NORM
LOAD Airfoils/airfoil.dat
OPER
VISC 5e+005
M 0.2
ITER
200
PACC
OUTputs/output.dat

ASEQ 0 10 0.2
PACC

QUIT

Normalise the airfoil to be loaded
Load the airfoil coordinates
Toggle the operational mode
Toggle the viscous mode and set Re=5e5
Set Mach Number = 0.2
Change viscous-solution iteration limit

Toggle auto point accumulation to active polar
Store the output in the file named output.dat

Prescribe a sequence of alphas and launch the
flow analysis

Quit XFOIL

An example of XFOIL output file is shown is the table below. The output file can be either a
text or a data file depending on the users needs. In this example, the characteristics of a given
airfoil are computed for a sequence of angles of attack (form 0 to 10 with an increment of 1)
at Re=200000 and Mach=0.2.

Table 3 : Output file returned by XFOIL
XFOIL Version 6.94

Calculated polar for:

1 1 Reynolds number fixed Mach number fixed

xtrf = 1.000 (top) 1.000 (bottom)
Mach = 0.000 Re = 0.200 e 6 Ncrit = 9.000

alpha CL CD CDp CM Top_Xtr Bot_Xtr
------- -------- --------- --------- -------- ------- -------
0.000 0.2339 0.00930 0.00403 -0.0549 0.9375 1.0000
1.000 0.3642 0.00891 0.00354 -0.0570 0.8925 1.0000
2.000 0.4591 0.00866 0.00323 -0.0514 0.8245 1.0000
3.000 0.5558 0.00873 0.00319 -0.0465 0.7187 1.0000
4.000 0.6512 0.00967 0.00367 -0.0421 0.5566 1.0000
5.000 0.7419 0.01153 0.00490 -0.0381 0.3554 1.0000
6.000 0.8300 0.01419 0.00685 -0.0348 0.1641 1.0000
7.000 0.9080 0.01931 0.01158 -0.0296 0.0405 1.0000
8.000 0.9777 0.02947 0.02250 -0.0233 0.0192 1.0000
9.000 1.0292 0.04073 0.03523 -0.0161 0.0153 1.0000
10.000 0.9988 0.05640 0.05244 -0.0064 0.0156 1.0000


18
The two last columns returned by XFOIL are the location of the transition point (laminar to
turbulent transition) on both airfoil top and bottom faces. The position is normalised with the
chord length.

In case of no convergence, no value is written in the output file. In most of the cases,
convergence can not be achieved due to boundary layer separation and stall regions.
Moreover, specific points can lead to numerical error (no convergence). In this case,
preliminary computations have to be performed to force the convergence (if it is possible).
Indeed when performing viscous analysis calculations, it is always a good idea to sequence
runs so that alpha (the angle of attack) does not change too drastically from one case to
another [2].The Newton solution method always uses the last available solution as a starting
guess for a new solution, and works best if the change from the old to the new solutions is
reasonably small. For this reason, it is best to perform difficult calculations by gradually
increasing the angle of attack.



3.2. Validity of XFOIL results

Some polars were computed and compared with results from the literature in order to validate
XFOIL results. This is done with two airfoil profiles: the MH126 and the MH30 at different
Reynolds numbers. The profile geometries are shown directly on the polars.



Figure 12: MH46 profile, Re=200000 and Mach = 0



19

Figure 13: MH46 profile, Re=400000 and Mach = 0



Figure 14: MH30 profile, Re=200000 and Mach = 0



20

Figure 15: MH30 profile, Re=400000 and Mach = 0


The polars computed with XFOIL are very close to the literature. The small difference
observed may come from the number of panels and nodes defining the airfoil geometries in
XFOIL. Indeed, the number of coordinate points that defines the profile can slightly modify
the polars especially if the leading edge region is not accurately defined. The polars shown in
the figures above validate XFOIL results.



3.3. Interface MATLAB/XFOIL

The automatic airfoil optimisation process has to be directed from MATLAB. Hence, one of
the keys of this project is to develop an interface between MATLAB and XFOIL.

As it is explained in the previous section, every XFOIL command can be automatically
operated by creating an input file and loading it in XFOIL. For that purpose, specific
functions are already developed in MATLAB to create different kind of files, including text,
data and batch files. Thus, information can be written and save under a specific format in a
specific directory. In the table below is shown the MATLAB functions used to create an input
file (.dat file) and write XFOIL commands in it. In this example, the input file created orders
XFOIL to compute the characteristics of a NACA2414 profile at 5 degrees angle of attack
with Re=500000 and Mach number=0.2 (random values). The results are stored and saved in
a data file, called outputfile.


21


Matlab script Text file created
fid = fopen(inputfile.dat, 'wt');
fprintf(fid,'NACA2414 \n');
fprintf(fid,'OPER \n');
fprintf(fid,'VISC %12.4g \n',500000);
fprintf(fid,'M %12.4g \n', 0.2);
fprintf(fid,'PACC \n');
fprintf(fid,'outputfile.dat \n');
fprintf(fid, \n');
fprintf(fid,'A %12.4g \n', 5);
fprintf(fid,'QUIT \n');
fclose(fid);

NACA2414
OPER
VISC 500000
M 0.2
PACC
outputfile.dat

A 5
QUIT


The input file is then called in a batch file which is executed by the system.


Matlab script

%- create the run file (.bat): ----------------------
fid = fopen(runfile, 'wt');
comand = ['xfoil < ',inputfile,' > ',outputscreenfile];
fprintf(fid,'%s\n',comand);
fclose(fid);

%- Execute the run file ------------------------------
system('cd (directory where XFOIL is installed)');
system(runfile);


Finally, once the results are saved in a text or data file, they are imported into MATLAB
thanks to the MATALB function importdata.

As it is explained in the previous section in case of no convergence of XFOIL computations,
no data can be imported into MATLAB and an error message appears. Hence, a preliminary
test has to check if convergence is reached. This test is based on the number of information
contained in the output file.

To summarize, flow calculations can be entirely directed from MATLAB without typing
manually any command in XFOIL. Every geometrical or physical parameters like the angle of
attack, the Reynolds or the Mach numbers, are defined in MATLAB. Then different
MATLAB functions automatically run XFOIL and import the desired results.




22
4. Airfoil Optimisation

It has been seen in the previous parts that any airfoil shape can be accurately reproduced using
a B-spline formulation based on 14 control points. It has also been seen that the airfoil
performance can be automatically determine with XFOIL thanks to an interface between
MATLAB and XFOIL. Hence, these two programs are to be used now for the optimisation
process.


4.1. General wind turbine airfoil requirements

Wind turbine airfoil profiles have slightly different requirements than airplane profile. Their
characteristics depend on the specific rotor the airfoils are intended for (e.g. pitch regulated or
stall control turbines). Nevertheless from a general point of view, some properties are
desirable for most turbines and are discussed in [1] and [6].

A wind turbine blade is divided into three distinct parts: the root, the mid and the tip part. The
general shape of the root part is strongly determined from the structural requirements. This
section of the blade provides the entire blade its stiffness and prevents too large tip deflection.
This is the reason why the root thickness is increased at the expense of aerodynamic
performance (e.g. lift-drag ratio). Indeed, in this region, the structural requirements are more
important than the aerodynamic performance. In the opposite, the tip part of the blade is
strongly determined by the aerodynamic performance.

The local shape of the airfoil and the location of the maximum thickness are also important
parameters. Indeed, this represents the geometrical compatibility of the entire blade. Having
the same airfoil family along the blade enables a smooth and fairly good interpolation of the
aerodynamic performance between the root, mid and tip parts. Moreover to ensure the blade
stiffness, a spar is inserted inside the blade and this would not be possible without geometrical
compatibility. Hence, an airfoil family must have the maximum thickness at the same
location.

Concerning the aerodynamic performance, the lift-drag ratio should be high for airfoils
located on the outer part of the blade for maximum power production. In case of pitch
regulation and active stall regulation, the lift-drag ratio should be high at and near the
operational point. For stall regulation, the lift-drag ratio should be high in the entire
operational range, in other words, at angles of attack below the maximum lift coefficient. The
operational point has to be close to the maximum lift to ensure the highest possible lift-drag
ratio for most angles of attack until stall.

Off-design characteristics are also important because of the large variation of angle of attack
during normal operation. Special study of the flow separation has to done concerning stall
regulation. Indeed, to limit the risk of stall induced vibrations, the flow at maximum lift
should separate from the trailing edge. To ensure well defined stall, there should be a sudden
movement of the transition point from the trailing edge to the leading edge. For traditional
pitch regulation, stall should be avoided in operation.

In natural conditions, bugs and dirt often soil wind turbine blades at the leading region and
increase leading edge roughness [1]. This causes early transition from laminar to turbulent


23
flow and an eventual jump in boundary layer momentum thickness. Thus, it affects a lot the
airfoil performance by reducing the maximum lift, lower the lift curve slope and increasing
the skin friction. It is very important that the maximum lift remains insensitive to leading edge
roughness, especially for stall regulation. It is possible to simulate leading edge roughness in
XFOIL by prescribing transition to 1% after the leading edge on the suction side and 10% at
the pressure side [6].

Another point is important to consider in wind turbine airfoil design: the noise emission. The
dominant noise from wind turbine is the broadband trailing edge noise coming from the
passage of the turbulent flow over the trailing edge. This type of noise depends mainly on the
free stream velocity but also on the thickness and the shape of the boundary layer at the
trailing edge [6]. The latter are directly related to the airfoil shape. It is possible to design
airfoils to limit noise emission at the most critical operational condition by reducing the
boundary layer thickness.

From a general point of view, the desirable characteristics involve both structural and
aerodynamic properties that are often in conflict with each other. For example, high lift-drag
ratio is in contrast to high airfoil thickness whereas high maximum lift is in contrast to
insensivity to leading edge roughness [1]. The aim of the design algorithm is thus to find an
airfoil that is a compromise between these conflicting requirements.



4.2. Design Strategy

In the present work, the basic idea of the airfoil optimisation is to use the B-spline formulation
of the airfoil to pull on the different control points to modify the blade profile in order to
reach some objectives. Hence, the degrees of freedom of the control points are the only design
variables. As far as the objectives are concerned, they can be either structural or aerodynamic.
The optimisation process is iterative and each iteration loop involves several flow
calculations. Thus, after every change in the geometry profile, XFOIL is called inside the
optimisation algorithm to evaluate the characteristics of the newly created shape. Based on
XFOIL results, the design algorithm develops an optimisation strategy to reach, if it is
possible, the different objectives. The design algorithm is detailed in the next section.

The design strategy is illustrated in Figure 16.




24

Figure 16: Flow chart of the design method


As a first step, the user has to define an object and a weight function. The object function
regroups all the different objectives that the optimisation process has to satisfy, or at least
approach as close as possible. If some objectives are more important than others, weight
factors have to be defined in the weight function but this is the responsibility of the designer.
The objectives can be both aerodynamic (e.g., lift-drag ratio for one or more angles of attack)
and structural (e.g. airfoil thickness at a certain chord-wise position). It can happen that design
constraints are imposed to the optimisation problem. For example a maximum/minimum lift-
drag ratio or airfoil thickness is sometimes required depending on the specific airfoil is
intended for. In this case design constraints are also included in the object function. Further
details on the weight and object functions are given in the next sections.

The initial airfoil shape can theoretically be any shape. Nevertheless choosing an initial shape
relatively close to the optimised profile decreases considerably the computational cost. For
example, if the objectives tend to create a thin airfoil profile, the optimisation process would
converge to a solution faster with a thin initial shape.

Once the objectives are reached or once the solution that best approaches the objectives is
found, the optimisation algorithm stops and returns the final optimised profile.

The figure below is an example of the different optimisation steps: every airfoil profiles
created during the optimisation process are plotted on the same figure such that the profile


25
evolution can be clearly observed. The initial airfoil is the external thick and symmetric blue
profile. In this example, the optimisation objective is to increase the lift-drag ratio of the
initial airfoil. The optimisation algorithm makes the airfoil profile becomes thinner and more
cambered until it reaches the given objective. It can be clearly seen from this figure that the
algorithm varies the control point coordinates (circles) only along their degrees of freedom. In
this example the B-spline formulation is the 4
th
CP distribution (see 2.2) based on 14 CPs and
k=5. Hence, there are 14 design variables.



Figure 17: Example of the different optimisation steps


The initial and final profiles are both plotted in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Initial and final profiles of the optimisation process


The overall operational conditions are defined by the Reynolds number based on the chord
length c and the wind speed V:

Vc
= Re where is the kinematic viscosity of air

The Reynolds number for an airfoil profile of a wind turbine blade depends on the spanwise
location and on the size of the wind turbine which determines the chord and the rotational
speed. The maximum Mach number is usually around 0.2, thus the flow can be considered
incompressible.



26
4.3. Design algorithm

There are basically two possible choices for the optimisation algorithm. Either a gradient
based method or global methods such as evolutionary type algorithms can be used.
Evolutionary algorithms have the advantage to be less sensitive to local minima. Nevertheless
they are time consuming and constraints have to be included as a penalty term on the
objective function. On the other hand, gradient based methods allow multiple constraints but
lack global optimality [1].

It has been chosen in [1] and [6] to use a traditional simplex optimisation algorithm based on
sequential linear programming with move limits in a standard bound formulation. In the
present work, it has been decided to use a pre-existing MATLAB function from the
optimisation toolbox. This function, called fgoalattain, is specifically developed for multi-
objective goal attainment problem and involves gradient based methods. Furthermore
optimisation algorithms developed and proposed by MATLAB have been chosen for their
robustness and iterative efficiency [3].

From a general point of view, multi-objective optimisation concerns the minimization of a set
of objectives simultaneously. The formulation implemented in fgoalattain is the goal
attainment problem of Gembicki [3]. Thus, the airfoil optimisation problem can be formulated
as follows:

Minimise
x,

such that
ub x lb
goal weight x F

) (


Where ) (x F , x , goal , , weight , lb and ub are vectors of the same length. x is the design
vector which is bounded by a lower bound lb and an upper bound ub . In this implementation,
the slack variable is used as a dummy argument to minimize the object function vector F(x)
simultaneously. is an internal variable; goal is a set of values that the objectives attain.
Generally, prior to the optimization, it is not known whether the objectives will reach the
goals (under attainment) or be minimized less than the goals (over-attainment). A weighting
vector, weight , controls the relative under-attainment or over-attainment of the objectives.


Design variables and boundaries

The vector x contains the control point coordinates that are free along the x- or/and the y-
direction. As it is explained in part 2, the CP distribution is formed by 14 points with different
degrees of freedom (see the table below). Therefore, the design vector x contains 14 variables
and is bounded by two vectors lb andub . Theses two vectors limit the geometrical
displacements of the control points. As the thickest profile possible can not exceed a circular
profile, the CPs are free to move in a circle of diameter 1. However, in order to limit
computational costs, the CPs are divided into two groups: the CPs from the suction side and
the CPs of the pressure side. Making this distinction, the maximum displacements of each
group can be restricted to two half circles (corresponding to the blue areas in Figure 19).



27

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
y CP
x CP
x CP
x
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
8
7




(a) pressure side


(b) suction side

Figure 19: Maximum displacement of the CPs of the pressure side (a) and the suction side (b)


Object function and goal vector

The objectives of the optimisation process have to be defined in the goal vector. For example,
if the objective is to reach lift-drag ratio of 100 at 5 degrees angle of attack and a ratio of 90 at
7 degrees, then the goal vector is written:
|
|

\
|
=
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
7
5
/
/
90
100

D L
D L
C C
C C
goal


The order of the different objectives does not matter as long as it is coherent with the rest of
the code.

If constraints should be applied, they have to be mentioned in the goal vector as well. For
example, if the airfoil profile should be normalised, then another objective can be defined as
chord=1. This is formulated as follows in the goal vector:

|
|
|

\
|
=
|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
7
5
/
/
90
100
1

D L
D L
C C
C C
chord
goal



28
The goal vector represents the objective that the object function ) (x F has to reach. ) (x F is
computed at each iteration of the optimisation process by an internal function inside
fgoalattain. In other words, at each change in CP coordinates, an internal function computes
the characteristics of the newly created profile and regroups them in ) (x F (in the example
mentioned above the characteristics are the chord length and the lift-drag ratio at 5 and 7
degrees).

The task of the optimisation function fgoalattain is to gradually move the design variables to
minimize the difference ) (x F - goal , and if possible, reach the objectives.

Weight function

A weighting vector weight is defined to control the relative under-attainment or over-
attainment of the objectives in fgoalattain. When the values of goal are all nonzero, to ensure
the same percentage of under- or over-attainment of the objectives, the weighting function is
set to weight =abs( goal ). In the present work, it is decided that the objectives have the same
percentage.

When the weighting function weight is positive, fgoalattain attempts to make the objectives
less than the goal values. To make the objective functions greater than the goal values, weight
is set to be negative rather than positive.

Options

Different options are available when using fgoalattain. For example, it is possible to make an
objective as near as possible to its corresponding goal value by using the option called
GoalsExactAchieve. Another option turned out to be very useful: the option DiffMinChange.
This option defines the minimum change in variables for finite-difference gradients. However
the default value in MALTAL is too small (
8
10

). Hence the change in the geometry profile is

too small to affect the airfoil performance and convinces the optimiser that convergence is
reach. Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, higher value of DiffMinChange has to be
defined. In the present work, it has been set:
2
10

= nge DiffMinCha .

Local minima

The drawback of the algorithm implemented in fgoalattain is the sensitivity to local minima.
Indeed fgoalattain might give only local solutions. This means that the optimised airfoil
profile returned by the optimisation process might not be the optimum solution. Nevertheless,
if the optimisation process has converged, this means that the objectives have been reached.
In this case, it does not really matter if the solution is global or local.

In case of no convergence, it is possible to perform a second optimisation and define the final
profile of the first optimisation as the initial profile of the second. The value of
nge DiffMinCha can be reduced to
3
10

. This method can sometimes avoid local minima.

XFOIL convergence

It has been explained in part 3 that XFOIL calculations might not converge. In this case, no
result is returned and arbitrary values have to be assigned to the different terms of object
function. It has been decided in the present work to set the lift coefficient and the lift-drag
ratio to zero when XFOIL does not converge.


29
5. Program validation

Examples of airfoil profile optimisation are detailed in this section. Theses examples concern
only the improvement of the MH43 profile at different angles of attack for given Reynolds
and Mach numbers. Furthermore, every design objectives described in 4.1 are not all included
in the following optimisations, mainly due to a lack of time and computing power. Thus, in
the following examples, it has been decided to improve only the lift-drag ratio and the lift
coefficient in order to validate the optimisation code.

The lift-drag ratio is to be improved at different angles of attack and two geometrical
constraints are to be imposed to the final design. First, the chord length has to remain equal to
chord=1 in order to normalise the final profile. Then, as a spar is supposed to be inserted in
the final profile, a minimum thickness is imposed to the profile. Neither the shape nor the
dimensions of the spar are realistic because the optimisation presented here is just an example
of the automatic 2D airfoil optimisation. The spar is assumed to be rectangular and its
dimensions are set randomly.

First, the optimisation is performed at 2 different angles of attack separately (2 and 5 degrees).
It consists in improving the lift-drag ratio at these specific angles of attack independently.
Finally, the optimisation is performed at 2 different angles of attack at the same time (2 and 5
degrees). The effect of the geometrical constraints due to the presence of the spar on the
optimised airfoil profile is shown in each case.

The optimisation process is performed in each case with:


Mach number = 0.2
Re = 3 000 000

Theses values correspond to the typical operational conditions of a 30m diameter wind
turbine. At these values, the characteristics of the MH43 profile are given in the figure below.


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
A.o.A
C
L
/
C
D

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
A.o.A
C
L

Figure 20: MH43 profile characteristics at Re=3e6 and Mach = 0.2



30
5.1. Improvement of the lift-drag ratio at 2 degrees angle of attack

At = 2 degrees, the initial MH43 profile has a lift-drag ratio of 93 (see Figure 20). The aim
of the optimisation is to increase this ratio to 120 and keep the same chord length. Thus, the
Goal vector given to the optimisation function fgoalattain is written as follow:

|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
120
1
2
D
L
C
C
length chord
Goal

The spar is supposed to be rectangular. Its position and its dimensions are taken arbitrarily to
illustrate the capacity of the design algorithm to include geometrical constraints in the
optimisation process. The spar is defined its four corners (see the figure below). Given
XsparLE and XsparTE (x coordinates of the corners), the four y coordinates of the corner are
defined as objectives to be reached in the Goal vector.

Figure 21: Illustration of the rectangular spar



The results of the optimisation are given in the table below.

Results:
Considering the spar constraints: Without considering the spar constraints:

|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
0388 , 122
1
2
D
L
C
C
length chord


|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
2579 , 120
1
2
D
L
C
C
length chord




31

Figure 22: Optimisation at alpha=2 degrees WITHOUT considering the spar constraints



Figure 23: Optimisation at alpha=2 degrees, effect of the spar constraints on the final profile



The aerodynamic characteristics of the optimised airfoil (considering the spar constraints) are
compared to the initial MH43 characteristics and shown in the figures below. It can be seen
that the MH43 performance have been enhanced at a 2 degrees angle of attack but drop
suddenly soon after. Indeed the airfoil profile is designed for a single and small angle of
attack. The sharp nose is efficient for very small angles but leads to early separation at the
leading edge when incidence increases (see Figure 26).

From a general point of view, the new designed airfoil has better characteristics for angles of
attack below the design angle but looses its performance at larger incidences.



32
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
A.o.A
C
L
/
C
D
test N7
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 24: Lift/Drag ratio versus the angle of attack, Re=3000000 and Mach=0.2


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
x 10
-3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
C
D
C
L
test N7
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 25: Lift Coefficient versus Drag Coefficient, Re=3000000 and Mach=0.2


33
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
A.o.A
T
o
p
X
t
r
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 26: Location of the transition point on the suction side versus the angle of attack




5.2. Improvement of the lift-drag ratio at 5 degrees angle of attack


At = 5 degrees, the initial MH43 profile has a lift-drag ratio of 110 (see Figure 20). In the
same way as in the previous section, the aim is to increase this ratio to 130 and keep the same
chord length. Thus, the Goal vector given to the optimisation function is written as follow:
|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
130
1
5
D
L
C
C
length chord
Goal

The results of the optimisation are given in the table below.

Results:
Considering the spar constraints: Without considering the spar constraints:

|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
0388 , 130
1
5
D
L
C
C
length chord
Goal

|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
0906 , 131
1
5
D
L
C
C
length chord
Goal



34

Figure 27: Optimisation at alpha=5 degrees WITHOUT considering the spar constraints



Figure 28: Optimisation at alpha=2 degrees, effect of the spar constraints on the final profile



The geometrical difference between the final profiles when the spar dimensions are taken into
account or not is not obvious. The leading edge and the suction are very similar. Only the
maximum thickness varies between the two optimised profiles. Nevertheless the geometrical
difference with the initial MH43 profile appears clearly on the figure above. Indeed leading
edges of the optimised profiles are much more cambered and thicker. This leads to better
performance at large angles of attack. However, due the thicker leading edge, the drag
coefficient is higher than the initial MH43 profile for small incidences (see Figure 30). This is
why the optimised profiles have lower lift-drag ratio below 4 degrees angle of attack.


35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
A.o.A
C
L
/
C
D
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 29: Lift/Drag ratio versus the angle of attack, Re=3000000 and Mach=0.2



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
A.o.A
C
L
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
A.o.A
C
D
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 30: Lift and Drag coefficients versus the angle of attack






36
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
x 10
-3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
C
D
C
L
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 31: Lift coefficient versus Drag coefficient

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
A.o.A
T
o
p
X
t
r
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 32: Location of the transition point on the suction side versus the angle of attack





37
5.3. Improvement of the lift-drag ratio at 2 AND 5 degrees angle of attack

In this section, the optimisation is performed at two angles of attack at the same time. In other
words, the optimisation function is trying to simultaneously increase the lift-drag ratios at
these two angles. According to Figure 20, the maximum lift-drag ratio of the initial MH43
profile is reached at = 3.5 degrees. Improving the characteristics around this angle would
tend to improve the profile performance over a large range of angles of attack. Thus the Goal
vector given to the optimisation function is written as follow:

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
=
=
120
110
1
5
2

D
L
D
L
C
C
C
C
length chord
Goal


Results:
Considering the spar constraints: Without considering the spar constraints:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
=
=
6635 , 1203
0001 , 110
1
5
2

D
L
D
L
C
C
C
C
length chord
Goal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

\
|
=
=
=
=
=
=
5164 , 120
0011 , 110
1
5
2

D
L
D
L
C
C
C
C
length chord
Goal




Figure 33: Optimisation at alpha=2 AND 5 degrees WITHOUT considering the spar constraints



38

Figure 34: Optimisation at alpha=2 AND 5 degrees, effect of the spar constraints on the final profile


The aerodynamic characteristics of the optimised airfoil (considering the spar constraints) are
compared to the initial MH43 characteristics and shown in the figure below. It can be seen
that the MH43 performances have been enhanced for all angles of attack.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
A.o.A
C
L
/
C
D
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 35: Lift/Drag ratio versus the angle of attack, Re=3000000 and Mach=0.2


39



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
A.o.A
C
L
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
0.012
0.014
0.016
0.018
A.o.A
C
D
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 36: Lift and Drag coefficients versus the angle of attack


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
x 10
-3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
C
D
C
L
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 37: Lift coefficient versus Drag coefficient


40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
A.o.A
T
o
p
X
t
r
initial mh43 profile
optimised profile

Figure 38: Location of the transition point on the suction side versus the angle of attack



In this particular case, optimising the MH43 profile at 2 and 5 degrees is sufficient to enhance
the profile performance on the entire range of angles of attack. Nevertheless, the optimisation
is made at Re=3000000 and Mach=0.2 and it is possible that the performance would not have
been as much enhanced at different values of Re and Mach. Moreover though the optimised
profile has better lift-drag ratio, it may have lower roughness insensitiveness. This is why a
roughness analysis is performed and shown in Figure 39.


It is explained in part 4.1, that in natural conditions bugs and dirt often soil wind turbine
blades and affect significantly the blade performance. It is possible to simulate this
phenomenon in XFOIL by forcing transition laminar-turbulent to 1% of chord after the
leading edge on the suction side and 10% at the pressure side. The results are shown in
Figure 39. Clean and dirty (dashed line) performance of both MH43 and optimised profile are
plotted in the figure. It can be seen that both profile are very sensitive to leading edge
roughness but it turns out that the optimised profile keeps better performance than the MH43
profile with a rough leading edge.







41

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
A.o.A
C
L
/
C
D
MH43 clean (free transition)
MH43 dirty (fixed transition)
Optimised profile clean (free transition)
Optimised profile dirty (fixed transition)

Figure 39: Roughness sensitiveness analysis


Theses examples of local optimisation of the MH43 profile show some very interesting results
that are validated by XFOIL. To summarize this last section, the optimisation program has
optimised the MH43 profile at the specific operational conditions Re=3e6 and Mach=0.2. The
MH43 performances have been enhanced on a large incidence interval (from 0 to 10 degrees
angle of attack). The optimised profile turns out to be roughness sensitive but not worse than
the initial MH43 profile. The entire optimisation has been automatically directed from
MATLAB.


In the following figures are shown the pressure distributions on the optimised airfoil at the
design angles of attack (2 and 5). The dashed lines represent the inviscid flow distribution.
This provides an easy way to compare viscous and inviscid flow. Furthermore the boundary
layer is outlined around the airfoil. The XFOIL command screens are given in the tables
below their corresponding figures. They show the last iteration which provides the point of
transition to turbulence (x/c) on both extrados (side1) and intrados (side2). It also provides
CDf and CDp, the friction drag and pressure drag respectively.

Concerning noise emission, there exists a specific command in XFOIL that computes and
returns different parameters of the boundary layer, like * or *, at several locations on the
airfoil profile. This command is very useful but such analysis is not performed in the present
work. This would constitute a future work on this project.




42







43

6. Future work and limitations


The optimisation program presented in this project is not completed yet and many other tests
and validations have to be performed.

Most of the time, the performance of the optimised profile is worse out of the design range of
angles of attack. This is why it is important to accurately define the desired characteristics and
constraints on a large range of angles of attack. In the present work, two aerodynamic
characteristics were defined as objectives. A future work would be to include more such
objectives to be able to design the entire polar. Nevertheless, this would require high
computer costs, the main limitation of this project.

A further objective of the future work would be to include the transition laminar-turbulent
position as a design objective. This is a very important parameter especially for the design of
stall regulation and active control wind turbine blades. The basic idea would be to impose a
minimum distance to the transition point in order to prevent stall up to a given angle of attack.
This would be very easy to implement in the design code since the position of the transition
point is provided in the XFOIL output file (see Table 3, part 3.1). Once again, this has not
been implemented in this project to limit computational costs.

Still concerning the boundary layer, a special analysis on roughness sensitiveness can be
easily added to the design code. The aim would be to impose aerodynamic characteristics as
design objectives to the corresponding dirty profile (rough leading edge).

Noise emission analysis could be another future work. The aim of this study would be to
impose a maximum boundary layer thickness at the trailing edge.

Finally, it would be interesting to compare XFOIL results with another flow solver like
FLUENT or EllipSys2D.


Concerning the limitations of this design code, the algorithm shows some difficulties to
converge when the optimisation objectives impose lower lift coefficient than the initial airfoil
profile. This problem does not exist anymore when the design objectives concern the lift-drag
ratio. This has to be investigated as a future work.

One of the main limitations of this design code is the design algorithm itself. It is explained in
part 4.3 that the optimisation algorithm implemented in the MATLAB function fgoalattain is
sensitive to local minima. As long as the optimisation process reaches the objectives, it does
not matter if the solution is a local or a global minimum. But when no solution is found, it
does not necessarily mean that no feasible solution exists. In most of the time, some
optimisation parameters need to be changed (e.g. the minimum change in variables for finite-
difference gradients). This requires some level of aerodynamic and algorithmic expertise and
common sense on the part of the user.





44
7. Conclusion

A method for design of wind turbine airfoils is presented. This method is based on direct
numerical optimisation of a B-spline representation of the airfoil shape. The generation and
the optimisation processes are implemented in MATLAB, and an interface between
MATLAB and XFOIL is created.

Airfoil curves are generated based on 14 control points using the B-Spline approach. It has
been shown that two control points, free to move in both x and y directions, can reproduce the
leading edge more accurately than with a single control point. Most of the control points are
fixed in x-direction in order to limit the number of design variables. The control point
distribution defined in the present work is able to reproduce different airfoils with various
geometries with maximal geometry difference less than 0.5%.

The design method is demonstrated by the improvement of the MH43 profile performances at
different angles of attack under specific conditions: Reynolds number = 3.10
6
and Mach
number = 0.2. First the lift-drag ratio at 2 degrees angle of attack is increased from 93 to 120.
Then, lift-drag ratio at 5 degrees angle of attack is increased from 110 to 130. Finally, the lift-
drag ratio is increased simultaneously at both angles: 2 and 5 degrees. In this particular case,
this results in an increase in performances of the initial MH43 profile over the entire range of
angles of attack. Moreover a roughness analysis is performed in XFOIL and shows that the
optimised profile is less sensitive to leading edge roughness than the initial MH43 profile.

To conclude, the design code presented here has proved to be able to design and optimised
airfoils at some specific points and under specific operational conditions. Nevertheless, the
program is not completed yet. Other validations have to be performed and several parameters
still have to be implemented. For example, objectives should be defined on a large interval of
angles of attack and transition properties as well as boundary layer characteristics should be
included in the objectives. Finally it would be necessary to check XFOIL results with another
flow solver like FLUENT or EllipSys2D.







45

References


[1] Kristian S. Dahl, Peter Fuglsang, Design of the Wind Turbine Airfoil Family RIS-A-
XX, Ris National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, December 1998

[2] Mark Drela, MIT AERO & Astro, Harold Youngren, Aerocraft, Inc., XFOIL 6.9 User
Primer, 30 November 2001

[3] The MathWorks, http://www.mathworks.com/ 1994-2009 The MathWorks, Inc.

[4] Press W. H.,Flannery B. P. , Teukolsky S. A. and Vetterling W. T. Numerical recipes:
The Art of Scientific Computing, Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2007

[5] Carl de Boor (1978), A Practical Guide to Splines. Springer-Verlag. pp. 113114.

[6] Peter Fuglsang, Christian Bak, Status of the RIS Wind Turbine Airfoils, Ris National
Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark, presented at the European Wind Energy Conference, Madrid,
16-19 June 2003